Catalogue of 


A LOAN EXHIBITION 
of 
FRENCH PAINTINGS 


ar 


SE Siligee ne PO oe 
RHODE ISLAND 

/ SCHOOL OF 
- =DESIGN — 
Silat eee a 


_DETROIT INSTITUTE OF ARTS 
DECEMBER 2 to 20 
1926 








THE 
pewntr LOAN EXHIBITION 


‘Ole 


OLD MASTERS 


French Paintings 
of the 
Eighteenth Century 


ae DERROIE INSTIBUTE OF ARTS 
December 2 to 20 


1926 





No. 40. Mme. Sophie de France 


JEAN MARC NATTIER 


FOREWORD 


WO years ago the Detroit Institute of Arts inaugurated a policy 

of bringing to the city each year, at least one loan exhibition of 
important paintings of some past period. Three such exhibitions, the 
first two unique of their kind, have already been shown: Dutch 
paintings of the seventeenth century, English paintings of the 
eighteenth century, and a collection of Old Masters from private 
collections in Detroit. This, the fourth exhibition, generously loaned 
from collectors in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Detroit, 
will show for the first time in any single exhibition, the rich resources 
of eighteenth century French painting in America. 


French art of the eighteenth century—and this is also true of the 
literature of the period—has come into a new appreciation with the 
opening of the present century. This is perhaps due to the fact that 
in our own day we are witnessing a reaction against the rigid 
morality of the Victorian regime just over, in the same way that 
the France of that period rebounded from the restraint exercised by 
the rule of Louis XIV, into an effervescence of gaiety and high 
spirits which has given to the world that delightful manifestation 
of artistic production which we call the Rococo, when the qualities 
which we invariably associate with the French genius: charm, good 
taste, an instinctive feeling for elegance, and an unfailingly clever 
craftsmanship, were given unfettered expression. 


The reign of Louis Quatorze, marked as it was with pomp, cere- 
mony, and elaborate court functions, and seemingly fostering the 
arts, had repressed all originality of expression, and only those forms 
of art which should present the imposing appearance befitting the 
service of the king and suiting the taste of his two advisers, Colbert 
and Le Brun, were encouraged. Moreover, the last years of his reign, 
covering the first fifteen years of the new century, were marked by 
exhaustion from the extravagance of the court and his many wars, 
and a cloud of gloom, increased by the Maintenon’s professions of 
piety, had settled over the land. It is small wonder that with the 
close of his reign in 1715, the esprit gaulois, ever chafing under the 
dead weight of tradition, should almost immediately react into an 
original and spontaneous artistic expression—an art founded entirely 
upon the life of the period, reflecting its virtues and failings. For in 
this century in France, as in no other period since the Renaissance 
in Italy, art is to be a complete expression of what is for the time 
being uppermost in the minds of the people. 


It is this very intimacy and spontaneity which gives the art of 
this period its great charm, and if we fail to get from it the deep 
emotional and spiritual reaction that we experience from the work 
of men of more serious epochs, with a deeper penetration into life’s 
mysteries, there are other facets to man’s nature, and the senses also 
demand satisfaction; and it is in this art of eighteenth century 
France, with its joyous abandon, its riotous color, and its expression 
of superabundant vitality, that our purely sensuous perception finds 
fullest gratification. 


Led by the pleasure-loving Philip, Duke of Orleans, who acted as 
Regent during the minority of Louis XV, who was only five years 
old at the time of the Grand Monarch’s death, life at court took on 
a new aspect. Tired of the monotonous routine of formal court 
functions, society moved from Versailles into the Capital, and the 
Luxembourg rather than the Trianon became the nucleus of fashion. 
The small apartment now came into favor, and the hotels of the 
Faubourg St. Germain took the place of the stately court apart- 
ments. With the new demands of fashion, the heavy and luxurious 
Louis Quatorze furnishings were found impracticable, and designers 
and decorators, now free to express themselves as they would, 
evolved the light, vivacious and delicate style of the Rococo, which 
is to characterize the art of the century—the fine arts of painting 
and sculpture as well as the crafts: furniture, jewelry, textiles and 
ceramics. Everywhere the high relief, broad and simple curves and 
strong contrasts of the seventeenth century are to be replaced by 
short, flat curves that form part of a circle; quick, gibbet-like scrolls, 
and an even distribution of light and shade; and the dark, rich colors 
and blackish backgrounds are to give way to delicate shades of pinks, 
blues, greens and yellows. 

Almost at the moment of the first exuberance, during the first days 
of the Regency, in the same year that Lecouvrer made her debut at 
the Comedie Francaise, ushering in a new era on the stage, with a 
natural as opposed to an artificial art of acting, Anthony Watteau 
exhibited as his entrance painting at the Academy (1717), his 
L’ Embarquement pour U Isle de Cythére and was immediately hailed 
as the painter who was first to give expression to the new spirit. 
The picture caused a sensation, and acted, it would almost seem, as 
a signal to the world of fashion to itself embark for Cythera, the 
isle of love and beauty, to greet anew the goddess whose reign was 
about to begin, and who, with Pan, is to preside over the art of the 
century. 

Though showing the trace of his Flemish birth (Valenciennes had 
only recently come into French possession), and the influence of 
Rubens, whose work he was given such a splendid opportunity to 
study during his stay with Claude Audran, the custodian of the 
Luxembourg, and though we see also a certain predilection for the 
coloring of the Venetians (Titian, Veronese and Giorgione), all this 
is completely assimilated, and the language Watteau uses is entirely 
his own—the expression of his own sensitive soul. He has been able, 
as only the few really great painters are able, to give us a new picture 
of the world, or rather, in his case, to create for us an entirely new 
world which has little connection with the actual, and which his 
vivid imagination and the witchery of his poetic fancy peoples with 
fairy beings of inimitable grace and charm. In The Pleasures of 
Summer and Festival to the God Pan, the silky spots made by the 
groups of people are blended with a diffused silver that unites the 
composition into an exquisite harmony of ensemble. From the 
roots of the trees to the clouds in the sky, we feel a tremble of life 


running through it. And what a perfect drawing of the tiny figures, 
with their clear-cut silhouettes and clever foreshortening! 

In An Italian Serenade we have a theme which Watteau used over 
and over again. The Italian comedians, serious artists in spite of the 
apparent flippancy of their calling, had already captured his fancy 
when, as a child, he had watched their performances in the open 
squares of his native city. Like them, his mission is to veil the bitter- 
ness of life with the mirage of art’s creation, and it is as a brother 
artist that he sees them. For Watteau never shared the life of which 
his canvases would lead us to believe he was so enamoured. His 
short existence was marked by wretched poverty, by wanderings, 
haunted by the tenacious presentiment of death, and his enjoyment 
of life was almost wholly a vicarious one, and the gay and carefree 
beings of his pictured world must live for him the life he is doomed 
shortly to leave behind. His is the intimate, delicate prelude to the 
gay, half laughing, half serious music of the century, which before 
its close is to end in the molto furioso of the Revolution. 


Lancret, the friend and pupil of Watteau, is the first to bring the 
muse down to earth. Though with him we find the same choice of 
subject, much the same coloring and even the same scheme of 
composition, the apparent resemblance covers in reality two quite 
different temperaments. Lancret’s is no fairy world. Under the trees 
of Longchamps or of St. Germain he makes to walk the flesh and 
blood subjects of Louis XV. With the use of the same elements he 
gives us exact pictures of the customs of his contemporaries. We 
feel that he is of the line of the French realists, who need contact 
with the soil. The fete galante of Watteau knows no limits of time 
and space; with Lancret it is French life of the eighteenth century. 
His acute observation, excellent composition, pleasing color, and his 
exceptional gift for the pictorial—these are the qualities that make 
Lancret the fine painter he is. 


It is curious to note the crescendo in the criticisms that have been 
written about him from the time of Charles Blane until our own day, 
and to observe how, in his own land, a lament is beginning to be 
heard that so many of his canvases have found their way to Ger- 
many, Sweden, England and America. 

Pater, the third of the painters of fétes galantes, has a more lively 
fancy and a more facile craftsmanship, with a more pronounced 
taste for every-day detail. In the four canvases in the exhibition, 
A Halt in the Chase, The Swing, The Bathers, and Féte Galante, we see 
that his compositions are more mannered, his landscapes more con- 
ventional, his grouping more timid. It is to be remembered, too, 
that these men lived farther on into the century than Watteau, and 
that we find in their style, especially Pater’s, a further development 
in the direction of pictorial atmospheric treatment, a lighter color 
scheme, and a greater dissolving of silhouette and linear composition. 

Watteau, too, had escaped the insidious influence of the growing 
profligacy of the court. For Louis XV, upon coming into his majority, 
had not only continued in the steps of the Regent, but had gone even 
farther. Seemingly completely devoid of moral decency, he lived a 


life of careless extravagance and license. He was satisfied to be called 
“the first gentleman of France’’ and apparently had no other ambi- 
tion for himself or his country. It was in reality La Pompadour, the 
last of the long line of famous mistresses to kings, who ruled France 
during the twenty. years of her reign at Court. Her successor, the 
Du Barry, filled a position to which she brought neither the intelli- 
gence nor the wit required of that important office. 


But, weak as was the rule of Louis Quinze, he gave a certain en- 
couragement to art. The Royal Collections were greatly increased 
during his reign. He also, to make them more accessible, removed 
many of the best pictures from Versailles to the Luxembourg, and 
for the first time in history the Royal Collection was made ac- 
cessible to the people, whose property it really was. The Salon 
exhibitions, closed since 1704, were reopened in 1725, and after 1737 
were held annually. Academies of art were springing up in the 
provincial cities and everywhere was a growing interest in art. 


La Pompadour, who had been instrumental in persuading the 
king to send his art treasures to the Luxembourg, encouraged art in 
other ways. Francois Boucher, the typical painter-decorator of the 
period, owed much of his success to her interest. Upon his return 
from Rome, his work attracted her favourable attention and he was 
at once advanced at Court and consulted on all questions of art. 
Associated with the Beauvais looms, and later Director of the Gobe- 
lins, he had early developed a strong sense for decoration, and in his 
canvases we feel that everything is subordinated to this, the human 
figure itself becoming part of his decorative scheme. 


In the two charming Decorative Panels of children at play, and in 
the Venus we feel the strong influence of Rubens, who lives again 
all through the art of the century. Lemoine, also, is there, though he 
has pitched that artist’s color scheme and tonality into a higher, 
silvery, and more sparkling key. The almost extravagant employ- 
ment of arabesque design is borrowed from Meissonier, the great 
exponent in furniture decoration of the Rococo. If he fails to differ- 
entiate in the texture of his draperies, clouds and rocks, we must 
remember that much of his work was of necessity hastily conceived 
and executed (he was one of the most prolific artists of all time), and 
that he is first of all a decorator, and realize that we cannot see his 
work to advantage when it is disassociated from the delightful 
interiors for which it was originally designed, and in which we can 
see the same rococo forms repeated in the mouldings, tapestries, 
hangings and furniture. 

In his St. John the Baptist, a painting whose subject seems strangely 
out of place among the nymphs, cupids and beribboned shepherdesses 
of the period, again everything conforms to decoration, and the 
rococo forms of the foliage and of the figure itself, are in keeping 
with Boucher’s ever-present decorative sense. 

In the Landscape, one of the few subjects of this kind by the artist, 
we have, in the gray color scheme, an anticipation of the Barbizon 
painters, while it shows at the same time the conventional, almost 


theatrical style of the classical landscapes of Claude Lorrain and 
Poussin. 


In Fragonard, Boucher’s pupil, we have, perhaps, the most com- 
plete child of his time. Watteau spiritualized his vision of love and 
life; but Fragonard saw it as it had become—a graceful artifice. 
The canvases in which he treats the same subjects as Boucher, are 
immeasurably more vital. The flesh tones are rosy and limpid; the 
bodies, enveloped in a silvery, transparent vapor, are supple and 
plastic; while the exquisite decorativeness is enhanced by the sug- 
gestion of life, and the luxuriousness is tempered with virility. More 
than any other painter of the period he reveals the influence of 
Rubens, the painter through whose northern eyes France is learning 
again the lesson of Italy. The Good Mother, Education is Everything 
and The Happy Family, are all pictures of his second period, when, 
retiring with his wife to the country, he became enamoured of simple 
scenes. The Minerva, and The Allegory of Painting belong to his 
Parisian period. To really know Fragonard, however, he must also 
be seen in those of his subjects in which his riotous bacchanalian 
abandon is given full sway. 


Among the fashionable portraitists of the period, Nattier has 
first place. He is to the Rococo what Rigaud and Largilliére were to 
the period of the Sun King. Pomp has yielded to elegance, character 
to fashion, stamina to grace of style, virility to virtuosity. The age has 
succumbed to silken fetters and femininity reigns supreme. It is 
difficult to suppress a smile when we recall Rigaud’s dislike for 
painting women sitters, for now the whole age is given over to 
woman. 


Nattier’s subjects are oftenest princesses of the royal blood. In the 
delightful portrait of Mme. Sophie de France, Louis’s oldest daughter, 
the grace and beauty of line and the broad planes of pure, limpid 
color, place it in the front rank of the portraits of the period. 


Drouais gives us a more sincere presentation of the character of 
his sitters, in an age which always flatters woman and usually mis- 
understands her, making of her now a philosopher, now an object 
solely for pleasure. In the best of his portraits, as in this splendid 
Mlle. de Verriéres, a canvas which was already famous at the Salon of 
1761 where it was engraved by St. Aubin, we feel that she is superior 
to these two things, possessed of a nobility and living grace more 
convincing than beauty. 


Duplessis, also, with his beautiful quality of pigment and firmness 
of touch, evidenced in the Portrait of a Man, is more sincere than 
most of the portraitists of the day, and his portraits of Gluck, 
Franklin, Marmontel and Mme. Necker, are well known and 
justly admired. 


But while the gay life of the higher social classes goes heedlessly 
on, there is another current of thought developing with the century, 
expressed in literature by Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, and Montes- 
quieu—all rebels in one way or another against the existing social 
order, and each making some contribution to the stream of ideas 


which is to lead to the gulf of the Revolution in the last decade of 
the century. 

The chief theme of Rousseau’s philosophy was that virtue can only 
come again to the nation by a return to simple living and an imita- 
tion of the ways of primitive society, before man had been spoiled by 
the evils of civilization. His ideas became immediately popular and 
soon the ‘“‘back to nature”’ ery was heard on every side. Society took 
it up, half in seriousness, half as a new means of diversion, for ennui 
and satiety, the inevitable accompaniment of over-indulgence, were 
rife at Court, and any new fancy was eagerly snatched at. In paint- 
ing, a new artist became the idol of the day—Jean Baptiste Greuze— 
who drew the models for his sentimental, story-telling pictures from 
that Third Estate which Rousseau had declared to be the only 
repository of virtue. 

Even Diderot, usually so sane a critic, and at first such an en- 
thusiastic admirer of Greuze, contends that ‘‘to render virtue 
amiable and vice odious is the proper aim of art,’’ an amusingly 
sudden conversion from the mood in which he, himself, so short a 
time ago, must have written his Bijoux indiscrets! 

Greuze’s portraits of half-innocent, wholly sophisticated maidens, 
pandering to the worn-out emotions of the age, while not to the 
taste of today, cannot be denied certain qualities of their own. The 
brush is wielded with more energy and decision than is at first 
apparent, and his flesh tones are often admirable, And we must grant 
that at least he was original in his vein, such as it is—the vein of 
bourgeois and peasant life, treated from a dramatic and moralizing 
point of view. 

But there was another artist of every-day things, of genre and 
still life, whose works are as full of interest now as when they were 
painted. Indeed, even more so, for outside the ranks of the artists 
and one or two critics, he received little notice in his own day. In an 
age abounding in artificiality and facile craftsmanship, catering to 
every passing whim of fashion, Chardin is a unique figure. He repre- 
sents those qualities of soundness and sobriety in the French 
character which, concealed beneath the shallowness and frippery of 
the age, are to rise again to the surface after the dark days of the 
Revolution. 

How modern the work of Chardin seems even today! What a 
scientist of color he was, anticipating Manet by a century! How 
marvelously he renders textures, so that it would seem, as Diderot 
said of him, that he must use the actual material of which an object 
was made and not paint to mix with the oil on his palette! His is no 
sedulous and mechanical drawing and painting of hair by hair and 
feather by feather. He lays together a few rich and cunning strokes 
of the brush that seem to have hardly a meaning when the eye is 
close to them, but grow as you retire, into a faultless and living 
representation of the natural object. No theme is too humble to de- 
serve his tender respect. In the simplest scenes of every-day life he 
finds inspiration for his work: a child blowing bubbles, a housewife 
preparing a frugal meal, a few bottles with some fruit on a table, a 


dead fish or a dead hare, or a few scattered vegetables. Here is a 
painter’s painter, of the tradition of Vermeer, de Hooch, and Ter- 
borch, yet different from all of these because he is French and Char- 
din! As Elie Faure says of him, ‘‘In France, he is, with Watteau, the 
only religious painter in this century that knew no religion.” 


As the century progressed, and the murmur of discontent against 
the reckless extravagance of the social classes grew, the philosophe 
movement represented by Rousseau and Montesquieu, became more 
and more popular. Montesquieu’s Lettres persanes, in which he had 
satirized the social, political and ecclesiastical follies of the day, was 
followed by his Grandeur et Decadence des Romains, the first im- 
portant essay that had been written on the philosophy of history, in 
which he dwelt particularly on the story of Rome and the reasons for 
her decay. About the same time scientific excavations were being 
carried out on the site of the buried city of Herculaneum, and 
Winckelmann had just finished his famous criticism extolling the 
virtues of classic art. True to its racial origin the French people now 
turned to the ideals of early Rome in their effort toward a better- 
ment of social and political conditions. Schools and colleges were 
urging the patriotism and austere virtues of Roman citizens. So 
strong was the reaction toward simplicity that even the nobles were 
carried away by it and men buttoned their coats to conceal the stars 
and other decorations which they had formerly been proud to 
exhibit. 


Painters also reacted to the new interest in antiques and men like 
Hubert Robert prowled about among the ruins of Rome and 
Herculaneum. 

But a painter was being prepared who was to give full expression 
to the new patriotism—Jacques Louis David, a republican at heart 
and the pupil of Joseph Marie Vien, who had been the first to ex- 
press the classic reaction. After winning the Prix de Rome, David 
went to that city with Vien, where he was soon absorbed in the 
study of the classic bas-reliefs, whose severity accorded with that 
of his republican ideals. This training and his own natural inclination 
explain his fitness to be the man of the hour. His Oath of the Horatii, 
exhibited upon his return to Paris in 1785, was instantly recognized 
as an expression of the new standards and he was forthwith ac- 
cepted as the arbiter of public taste. 

In the period following 1789, art took the position of a public in- 
terest. As one form of the national production it was to have a voice 
in political affairs, in the same way as agriculture or manufacture. 
Terms of patriotism and devotion to country passed into the vernacu- 
lar of the crowd. Men and women cared for no other name than 
that of‘‘citizen.’”’ Roman fashion extended to clothes, furniture and 
other accessories of living. 

Seldom has it been given to an individual artist to express so 
completely the latent thought of his time. His many pupils (it is said 
that at one time he had four hundred) were bound heart and soul 
to his principles, and during the years of his undisputed rule, France 
experienced a complete classical reaction, which was to end only 


with the Romantic movement of the new century. When Napoleon 
rose to power, David became his fervent admirer, and his pictures 
of the Emperor are among the best known of his works. 


Though his was an academic art, based upon the externals of 
form, without reference to color, and though he aimed at a norm of 
beauty, avoiding the irregularities and accidents of personality that 
make for character, we must grant that he freed painting from the 
restless curves and over-crowding of canvas of so much of the art of 
the century and that it was necessary to have a David before the 
modern movement could begin. 


What a complete swing of the pendulum from the beginning to the 
end of the century—from the warm, pulsing, fairy fantasies of 
Watteau, to the cold and formal art of David! Perhaps in no other 
period of history has there been a better illustration of the law that 
“for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction,” 
that when a pendulum swings a certain distance in one direction it 
must of necessity describe a corresponding arc on the opposite side 
of the perpendicular. 

JOSEPHINE WALTHER. 


LOUIS LEOPOLD BOILLY 


Born at LaBassée, near Lille in 1761; died at Paris in 1845. His only master was 
his father, Arnould Boilly, a wood carver. At the early age of twelve he painted 
pictures for a church at La Bassée, and at fourteen, for an Augustine priory at 
Douai. At Arras he painted more than three hundred small portraits in two years. 
About 1786 he settled in Paris, where he executed a vast number of works. In 1833 
he was invested with the order of the Legion of Honor. Many of his works, par- 
ticularly his famous caricatures, have been engraved. He can be seen to best 
advantage in the Museum at Lille. 


1. THE GRIEF-STRICKEN FAMILY. 
Canvas: 18 inches by 2134 inches. 
Lent by Mr. Jacques Seligmann. 


FRANCOIS BOUCHER 


Born at Paris in 1703; died there in 1770. Studied with his father, an embroidery 
designer, and later with Lemoine. In 1723 he won First Prize at the Academy. In 
1727 he went to Rome with Carle Van Loo, where he remained for four years. 
Returning to Paris in 1731, he immediately won recognition and in 1734 was ad- 
mitted to the Academy. He was associated with the Beauvais tapestry manutac- 
tory for several years, and at the death of Oudry became inspector at the Gobelins, 
but resigned this position in 1765, when he succeeded Carl Van Loo as First 
Painter to the King. Boucher was a prolific painter and decorator, and in the latter 
capacity executed a great deal of work for Mme. de Pompadour. 


2ap5L. JOHN THE BAPTIST. 
Canvas: 451% inches by 701% inches. 


Formerly in the collection of the Countess J. Blaise de Montesquiou, who in- 
herited it from the Countess de Grammont. 


Lent by Mr. Jacques Seligmann. 


3. PAIR OF DECORATIVE PANELS: INFANTS AT PLAY. 
Panels: 27 inches by 481% inches. 
Lent by Sir Joseph Duveen. 


4. PORTRAIT OF A LADY. 
Canvas: 24 inches by 29 inches. 
Lent by Mr. 8. R. Bertron, New York. 


5. VENUS. 
Canvas: 39 inches by 511% inches. 
Lent by Mr. René Gimpel. 





No. 3. Pair of Decorative Panels 


FRANCOIS BOUCHER 


FRANCOIS BOUCHER 


(Continued) 


6. LANDSCAPE. 
Canvas: 20 inches by 2434 inches. 
Signed with the initials. 
Lent by Mr. René Gimpel. 


7. THE FLOWER VENDER. 
Canvas: 56 inches by 75 inches. 
Lent by Mr. Paul Reinhart. 


8. JUPITER AND CALLISTO. 
Canvas: 221% inches by 263 inches. 
Signed and dated at lower right, ‘‘F. Boucher, 1763.” 
Exhibited at Bethnal Green Museum, 1872-75, No. 390, by Sir Richard Wallace. 


Catalogued: F. Boucher, by A. Michel, Paris, 1906, p. 18, No. 194; Boucher, by 
P. de Nolhac, Paris, 1907, p. 116. 


Mentioned: Catalogue of the Wallace Collection, London, 19138, p. 19. 


Formerly in the collections: Bergeret de Grandcourt; Marin, 1790; Sir Richard 
Wallace, Bart. 


Lent by Mrs. William Hayward, New York. 


9. ANGELIQUE AND MEDOR. 
Canvas: 2214 inches by 263% inches, oval. 
Signed and dated at lower left, ‘““F’. Boucher, 1763.” 
Catalogued: F. Boucher, by A. Michel, Paris, 1906, p. 7, No. 75. 
Mentioned: Boucher, by P. de Nolhac, Paris, 1907, p. 93. 


Formerly in the collections: Bergeret de Grandcourt; Marin, 1790; Sir Richard 
Wallace, Bart. 


Lent by Mrs. Wiliam Hayward, New York. 





No. 12. The Fountain 


JEAN SIMEON CHARDIN 


JEAN SIMEON CHARDIN 


Born in Paris in 1699; died there in 1779. Studied with Cazes and later with 
Coypel. While a pupil of Coypel he was chosen, with Van Loo, to assist in restoring 
one of the galleries at Fontainebleau. His reputation thus established, he devoted 
himself to painting still life. He was made a member of the Academy in 1728, and 
Treasurer in 1755. About 1737 he turned his attention to figure painting and it 
was after this date that he painted his famous genre subjects. 


10. THE RABBIT. 
Canvas: 24 inches by 281% inches. 
. In the collection of the Detroit Institute of Arts. 


11. THE SPINNER. 
Canvas: 61% inches by734 inches. 
Lent by Mr. René Gimpel. 


12. THE FOUNTAIN. 
Canvas: 1534 inches by 221% inches. 


Exhibited at the Salon of 1773; London, Guildhall, 1902, No. 124; Glasgow, 
1902, No. 7. 


Mentioned by A. Graves, A Century of Loan Exhibitions, p. 167; French Art of 
the Eighteenth Century, Burlington Fine Arts Club, 1914, p. 48. 


Formerly in the collection of Mr. M. Harland-Peck, London. 
Lent by Mr. Felix Wildenstein. 


13. A BASKET OF PLUMS. 
Canvas: 161% inches by 18% inches. 
Catalogued in: Guiffrey, Chardin, Catalogue raisonné, p. 83, No. 170; Herbert 
Furst, Chardin, p. 127. 
Formerly in the collections: Pillet, Leon Michel-Levy, Paris. 
Lent by Mr. Felix Wildenstein. 





No. 15. Mme. de Servan 


JACQUES LOUIS DAVID 


CHARLES ANTOINE COYPEL 


Born in Paris in 1694; died there in 1752. He studied under his father, Antoine 
Coypel, whose style he followed. He quitted historical subjects to paint bam- 
bochades. His taste for the theatre frequently shows in the composition and 
position of his figures. He was made Keeper of the King’s pictures and,drawings, 
one in et was appointed chief painter to the King, a position his father had held 

efore him 


14. CHARLOTTE, MARQUISE DE LAMURE. 
Pastel: 24 inches s by 29 inches. 
Lent by Lady Elsie Duveen. 


JACQUES LOUIS DAVID 


Born in Paris in 1748; died at Brussels in 1825. He received his first instruction 
from Francois Boucher, his uncle. In 1774 he received the Prix de Rome and in 
1775 set out for Italy. While there he became absorbed in the study of antique 
sculpture and spent most of his time drawing from it. He returned to France in 
1780 and was admitted to the Academy in 1783. Shortly afterward he again 
visited Italy and also Flanders. Elected in 1792 a representative of Paris in the 
Convention, he sided with the extreme party of Robespierre, after whose fall he 
was twice thrown into prison, barely escaping with his life. On his release in 1795 
he abandoned politics. He was one of the original members of the Institute, in 
connection with which he became the friend of Napoleon, whose First Painter he 
afterward became. He was the leader and strongest exponent of the classic move- 
ment that swept France in the late eighteenth century. 


15. MME. DE SERVAN. 


Canvas: 441% inches by 571% inches. 


Exhibited in ‘Exhibition of French Art,’’ Leipsig, 1910, No. 294; ‘‘Universal 
Exhibition,’ Rome, 1911. 


From the collection Herdebault, Paris, a descendant of Mme. Servan. 
Lent by Mr. Felix Wildenstein. 





No. 16. Mile. de Verriéres 


FRANCOIS HUBERT DROUAIS 


FRANCOIS HUBERT DROUAIS 


Born in Paris in 1727; died there in 1775. Studied first with his father, then 
successively with Nonotte, Natoire and Boucher. He was received into the 
Academy in 1758. Following his introduction at court he painted portraits of all 
the members of the Royal Family and many of the celebrated beauties of the 
period. He exhibited at the Salon from 1755 until his death. 


16. MLLE. DE VERRIERES. 
Canvas: 2 feet, 9 inches by 3 feet, 8 inches. 
Exhibited at the Salon of 1761, No. 80. 


Mentioned and reproduced in Les Catalogues Illustrés by G. de St. Aubin. 
Also mentioned in Gazette des Beaux Arts, 1903. 


Formerly in the collection of the Baroness Mathilde de Rothschild, Chateau 
de Gruneburg, who inherited it from her father, the Baron Nathaniel de Roth- 
schild of Vienna. 

Lent by Mr. Jacques Seligmann. 


17. HERAULT DE SECHELLES, AS A CHILD. 
Canvas: 23% inches by 29 inches. 
Signed and dated 1763. 


Exhibited at Berlin, 1910, Royal Academy of Arts, Exposition d’Oeuvres de 
VArt francais au XVIIIe Siecle, No. 35; London, 1914, Burlington Fine Arts 
Club, No. 55. 


Mentioned by Paul Lacroix, Annuaire des Artistes, 1861, page 126. 


Formerly in the collections: Duchesse de Crillon; Magin, Sale Paris, June, 1922, 
No. 14. 
Lent by Mr. and Mrs. Ernest Rosenfeld, New York. 


18. MME. DU BARRY. 
Canvas: 231% inches by 28 inches. 
Lent by Mr. Felix Wildenstein. 





No. 22. The Good Mother 


JEAN HONORE FRAGONARD 


JOSEPH SIFREDE DUPLESSIS 


Born at Carpentras near Avignon in 1725. He was destined for the priesthood, 
but at an early age he showed his inclination for the arts. He was taught by his 
father, and afterwards by Frére Imbert. He visited Rome in 1745 and studied 
there under Subleyras. Upon his return, after a short stay at Lyons, he established 
himself in Paris and was received into the Academy in 1774. Losing his fortune in 
the Revolution, he accepted the post of Conservateur of the Museum of Versailles, 
where he died in 1802. He possessed a high reputation for his portraits, among 
which are those of Gluck, Franklin, Marmontel, the Abbe Bossuet, and M. and 
Mme. Necker. | 


19. PORTRAIT OF A MAN. 
Canvas: 40 inches by 53 inches. 
Lent by Mr. René Gimpel. 


_ JEAN HONORE FRAGONARD 


Born at Grasse in 1732; died at Paris in 1823. He attended the atelier of Boucher, 
who placed him under the influence and teaching of Chardin. He obtained the 
Grand Prix de Peinture in 1752. He studied at Rome for a time, afterward visiting 
Naples and Sicily, returning to Paris in 1783. With the Revolution his brilliant 
career in Paris came to an end and he died in poverty and obscurity. Fragonard 
was the last of the great French decorators of the eighteenth century. 


20. MINERVA. 
Canvas: oval, 17 inches by 261% inches. 
Lent by Mr. and Mrs. Edgar B. Whitcomb. 


21. EDUCATION IS EVERYTHING. 

Canvas: 22 inches by 26 inches. 

Engraved by Delauney and Eredi. 

Catalogued in: Goncourt, p. 332, 333; Portalis, p. 276; Nolhac, p. 128. 

Mentioned by Portalis, 67, 109, 114; Josz, 153; Mauclair, 43; Grappe, I, 120; 
Dayot, No. 152; Beraldi, II, 541; Renouvier, Histoire de ! Art Pendant la Revolu- 
tion, 166; Revue de l’ Art Ancien et Moderne, 1907, 292, by Fourcaud. 

Formerly in the collections: Aubert, 1786; Delauney, 1792; Comte Stroganoff, 
Rome; Mme. Roussel, Paris; Walter Burns, London. 

Lent by Mr. Felix Wildenstein. 





No. 21. Education is Everything 


JEAN HONORE FRAGENARD 


JEAN HONORE FRAGONARD 


(Continued) 


22. THE GOOD MOTHER. 
Canvas: 251% inches by 2114 inches. 
Engraved by Nicolas de Launay. 


Exhibited at Paris, 1883, in L’Art du X VIIIe Siecle, No. 60; Les Inondes du 
Midi, 1887, No. 45. 


Mentioned in: F. Naquet’s Fragonard; Mauclair’s Fragonard; Virgile Josz’s 
Fragonard; P. de Nolhac’s Fragonard; Portalis’s Fragonard. 


Formerly in the collections: Spitzer and Mme. Pellegrin. 
Lent by Mr. 8S. R. Bertron, New York. 


23. THE HAPPY FAMILY. 
Canvas: Diameter, 121% inches. 
Lent by Mr. Edwin A. Shewan, New York. 


24. ALLEGORY OF PAINTING. 
Canvas: 4014 inches by 541% inches. 
Lent by Mr. René Gimpel. 


JEAN BAPTISTE GREUZE 


Born near Macon, Burgundy, in 1725; died in Paris in 1805. From his eighth 
year showed marked talent for drawing. Studied at Lyons and at the Academy in 
Paris. Was made a member of the Academy in 1755. After a short period of study 
in Italy he returned to Paris and continued to exhibit at the Academy, without 
fulfilling the acquired academic conditions. After repeated warnings he became 
indignant and withdrew from the salons and did not exhibit again until after the 
Revolution, by which time his popularity had declined. 


25. A YOUNG GIRL WITH DOVES. 
Canvas: 4514 inches by 58 inches. 


From the collection of Leopold de Rothschild, Esq. 
Lent by Sir Joseph Duveen. 





No. 27. Innocence 


JEAN BAPTISTE GREUZE 


JEAN BAPTISTE GREUZE 


(Continued) 


26. LOVE’S DESIRE. 
Canvas: 2634 inches by 32 inches. 
Mentioned in Martin’s Greuze, p. 91, No. 1571. 


Catalogued in the Caroline Greuze (daughter of the artist) Sale, 1843, No. 77, 
by Thoré. 


From the collection of M. David Weill, Paris. 
Lent by Mr. Felix Wildenstein. 


27. INNOCENCE. 
Canvas: 181% inches by 22 inches. 
Lent by Mr. René Gimpel. 


28. BENJAMIN FRANKLIN. 
Canvas: 231% inches by 281% inches. 
Lent by Mr. Percy Rockefeller, New York. 


29. PORTRAIT OF MLLE. GREUZE. 
Canvas: 21 inches by 25 inches. 
Lent by Mrs. H. N. Torrey. 


30. LA BELLE JARDINIERE. 
Canvas: 24 inches by 30 inches. 
Lent by Mr. René Gimpel. 





No. 31. The Dance in a Park 


NICHOLAS LANCRET 


NICOLAS LANCRET 


Born in Paris in 1690; died there in 1743. Received elementary training from 
an uncle and from Pierre D’Ulin, professor at the Academy. He studied for some 
years under Claude Gillot, where he fell under the influence of Watteau. In 1719 
he was received into the Academy as a painter of fétes galantes, and in 1735 was 
elected Conseiller of the Academy. 


31. THE DANCE IN A PARK. 
Canvas: 411% inches by 45% inches. 
Catalogued in George Wildenstein’s Lancret, No. 199. 
From the Collection Marinoni. 
Lent by Mr. Felix Wildenstein. 


32. THREE DECORATIVE PANELS: THE SEE-SAW, THE SWING, AND 
THE VINTAGE. 


Panels: 35 inches by 58 inches. 


From a pavilion situated in the Place Royale (now called Place des Vosges), 
Paris, on the site of the present No. 28, built by Caulet d’Hauteville. 


From the collection of Vicomte Pierre de Chezelles de Boulleaume. 
Lent by Sir Joseph Duveen. 


33. TWO DECORATIVE PANELS: THE GARDENER AND HORTICUL- 
TURE. 


Panels: 14 inches by 58 inches. 
From a pavilion situated in the Place Royale (now called Place des Vosges), 


Paris, on the site of the present No. 28, built by Caulet d’Hauteville. 
From the collection of Vicomte Pierre de Chezelles de Boulleaume. 


Lent by Sir Joseph Duveen. 
34. SELF PORTRAIT. 


Canvas: 2214 inches by 2514 inches. 
Lent by Mr. René Gimpel. 





Countess of Chatenay 


38 


No 


— 


VIGEE LE BRUN 


VIGEE LE BRUN 
(Marie Louise Elizabeth Le Brun, née Vigée) 


Born in Paris in 1755; died there in 1842. Studied under Davesne, Briard and 
Joseph Vernet. Painted no less than twenty-five portraits of Marie Antoinette, of 
whom she became a close friend. In 1776 she married Jean Baptiste Pierre Le Brun, 
a painter and picture dealer. In 1783 she was admitted to the Academy. At the 
outbreak of the Revolution she went to Italy, visiting Bologna, Rome, Naples 
and Florence, and was admitted to a number of Italian Academies. She painted 
portraits in Vienna and later in St. Petersburg. She returned to France in 1802 
and went from there to England, where she lived for three years. She finally 
settled in Paris, where she continued painting until her death. She was one of the 
fashionable portrait painters during the reign of Louis XVI. 


35. MARIE ANTOINETTE. 
Canvas: 28 inches by 351% inches. 
Painted in 1779 and signed ‘‘Vigée Le Brun.” 
Etched and engraved by Villain. 


Catalogued in de Nolhac’s Vigee Le Brun. Mentioned in Paintings of the French 
School coming from Amateurs’ Collections; Gazette des Beaux Arts, 1860, by W. 
Burger; Bulletin of the Detroit Institute of Arts, Vol. VI, No. 2. 


From the collection of Baron Christiani, Paris. Formerly in the collection of 
M. Boige, Dixmont, to whom it was bequeathed by Charles Auguste Tripier le 
Franc, who received it from Charles Tripier le Franc, a nephew of Vigée le Brun. 


Lent by Mr. and Mrs. Edgar B. Whitcomb. 


36. COMTESSE DU BARRY. 
Panel: 2034 inches by 275% inches. 
Painted in 1781. 


Given by the sitter to her lover, Henry Seymour, in whose family it remained 
until it was purchased from his descendants a few years ago. 


Lent by Mr. Roland Knoedler. 


37. PRINCESS BIBIKOFF. 
Canvas: 324% inches by 438) inches. 
Lent by Mr. Jules 8. Bache, New York. 


38. COUNTESS OF CHATENAY. 
Canvas: 201% inches by 25 inches. 
Lent by Mrs. H. N. Torrey 





No. 44. The Bathers 


JEAN BAPTISTE JOSEPH PATER 


JEAN MARC NATTIER 


Born in Paris in 1685; died there in 1766. He was first instructed by his father, 
a portrait painter, and later studied at the Academy and the Gallery of the 
Luxembourg. About 1716 he went to Amsterdam where he painted a number of 
portraits. In 1718 he returned to Paris and was admitted to the Academy. He 
became famous as a portrait painter of the women at the French court. 
39. MME. DU PERON. 

Canvas: 25 inches by 31 inches. 

Lent by Sir Joseph Duveen. 


40. MME. SOPHIE DE FRANCE. 
Canvas: 521% inches by 71 inches. 


Formerly in the collections: Lord Hertford, Sir Richard Wallace and Sir John 
Murray Scott. 


Lent by Mr. Felix Wildenstein. 


41. MME. DE CHATEAUROUX, AS FORCE. 
Canvas: 44 inches by 56 inches. 
Signed and dated 1743. 
Catalogued in de Nolhac’s Nattier, pages 139 and 156. 


Formerly in the collections: Mme. la Marquise de Trevise and Mme. la 
Princess de Faucigny-Cystria, Chateau de Scéaux. 


Lent by Mr. Felix Wildenstein. 


42. MME. LA TOURNELLE. 
Canvas: 251% inches by 32 inches. 
Exhibited at the Universal Exposition, St. Louis, 1904. 
Lent by Sir Joseph Duveen. 





No. 43. Féte Galante 
JEAN BAPTISTE JOSEPH PATER 


JEAN BAPTISTE JOSEPH PATER 


Born at Valenciennes in 1695; died at Paris in 1736. Studied under Watteau, 
whose work his paintings closely resemble. Admitted to the Academy in 1728. 
Painter of fétes galantes. 


43. FETE GALANTE. 
Canvas: 28 inches by 39 inches. 
Formerly in the Wertheimer collection and the Van Outhmann collection. 
Exhibited at Guildhall, London, 1902. 
Lent by Mr. Ralph H. Booth. 


44. THE BATHERS. 
Canvas: 39 inches by 51 inches. 
Formerly in the collections: Comte d’Eloa, Ferdinand Bishoffsheim and Comte 
de Noailles. 
Lent by Mr. Felix Wildenstein. 


45. THE SWING. 
Canvas: 281% inches by 351% inches. 
Lent by Mr. 8. R. Bertron, New York. 


46. A HALT IN THE CHASE. 
Canvas: 171% inches by 21 inches. 
Lent by Mrs. Charles B. Alexander, New York. 





No. 49. View of Ermenonville 


HUBERT ROBERT 


HUBERT ROBERT 
(Robert Des Ruines) 


Born in Paris in 1733; died there in 1808. After learning the rudiments of de- 
sign in Paris he went to Rome, where he passed several years, making accurate 
drawings from the remains of ancient architecture. On his return to Paris he was 
made a member of the Academy and his pictures were held in high esteem. He 
has also left a series of spirited etchings, and the Louvre possesses seven good 
examples of his work. 


47. THE WOODCUTTERS. 
Canvas: 6 feet 61% inches by 9 feet 61% inches. 


Formerly in the collections: Comte de Ducfort, Paris and E. T. Stotesbury, 
Philadelphia. 
Lent by Mr. Felix Wildenstein. 


48. THE DRAUGHTSMEN. 
Canvas: 6 feet 61% inches by 9 feet 61% inches. 


Formerly in the collections: Comte de Ducfort, Paris and E. T. Stotesbury, 
Philadelphia. 
Lent by Mr. Felix Wildenstein. 


49. VIEW OF ERMENONVILLE. 
Canvas: 26% inches by 311% inches. 
Catalogued in de Nolhac’s Hubert Robert, page 124. 
Formerly in the collection of Prince Tufialkin. 
Lent by Mr. Felix Wildenstein. 


50. PIAZZA ST. PETER. 
Canvas: 121% inches by 1234 inches. 
Lent by Mr. René Gimpel. 


ALEXANDER ROSLIN 


Born at Malmoe, Sweden, in 1718. Died in Paris in 1793. He worked in Paris 
as a portrait painter and in 1753 became a member of the Academy. He later re- 
turned to Sweden for a time and afterward visited Russia. 


51. PORTRAIT OF A LADY. 
Canvas: 201% inches by 2514 inches. 
~ Lent by Mr. Felix Wildenstein. 





No. 53. Festival to the God Pan 


JEAN ANTOINE WATTEAU 


LOUIS TOCQUET 


Born in Paris in 1696; died there in 1772. He was a pupil of Nicolas Bertin and 
later of Rigaud. He became a member of theAcademy in 1734. He was invited to 
the Russian court, where he painted portraits of the Empress Elizabeth, and 
met with much encouragement. He spent two years at St. Petersburg and went 
from there to Copenhagen, where he painted several members of the Royal 
Family of Denmark. He returned to Paris, where he married the daughter of the 
painter Nattier. 


52. PORTRAIT OF A WOMAN. 
Canvas: 29 inches by 39 inches. 
Lent by Mr. Ralph H. Booth. 


JEAN ANTOINE WATTEAU 


Born at Valenciennes in 1664; died at Nogent-sur-Marne in 1721. Studied at 
Valenciennes under M. J. A. Gerin who set him to draw in the churches and the 
picture gallery. He was particularly attracted to genre subjects, especially the 
Italian comedians, and the latter remained a favorite study throughout his whole 
career. Want of sympathy at home led him, in 1702, to tramp all the way to Paris. 
In 17038 he entered the studio of M. C. Gillot, a fashionable painter of decorative 
panels and arabesques. He became the assistant of M. Audran, Keeper of the 
Luxembourg, one of the first decorative artists of the day. While here he had an 
excellent opportunity to study the frescoes of Rubens. In 1709, Watteau entered as 
a pupil at the Academy. After a visit to Valenciennes he returned to Paris, 
entering the household of M. de Crozat, who owned a splendid collection of Italian 
and Flemish pictures. Was admitted to the Academy as a painter of fétes galantes 
in 1717. In 1719 he paid a visit to England, returning to Paris the next year. Hav- 
ing been the victim of tuberculosis for a number of years he left Paris for a country 
home, at Nogent-sur-Marne, where he died in July, 1721. 


53. FESTIVAL TO THE GOD PAN. 
Canvas: 26 inches by 32 inches. 
Engraved by Aubert. 
Mentioned by De Goncourt, Watteau, page 47, No. 40. 
Formerly in the collections: Morel, and Camille Groult, Paris. 
Lent by Mr. Felix Wildenstein. 


54. AN ITALIAN SERENADE. 
Panel: 111% inches by 141% inches. 
Lent by Mr. Felix Wildenstein. 


55. THE PLEASURES OF SUMMER. 
Canvas: 9 inches by 127% inches. 
Engraved by J. de Favannes. 


Mentioned in Goncourt, L’ Art au XVIITe Siecle; Virgile Josz, Watteau, Paris 
1903. 


Formerly in the Gluck collection. 
Lent by Mrs. John W. Simpson, New York. 


























ae 


HEITMAN-GARAND COMPANY — 





























4 ‘ 
+ : s J 
| 
’ 
\ 
ws 

t 

{ 

Lt t 
- ) . 
Se a) 

a y 
ae 
% 
: 
a 
“ 
a iv 
m f vid 

‘ a 


